Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harris + Hoole logo.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Harris + Hoole logo.svg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by JaJaWa as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: UK logo above TOO. Also, the copyright holder's website[1] states: "No licence is granted to you in these Terms and Conditions to use any trade mark of Harris + Hoole or its affiliated companies." Hence, the image is ineligible for Commons.
Converted by me to regular DR to allow for discussion about TOO. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep sans serif letters in a rectangle, which is as original as Category:BBC logos would be.--RZuo (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete as copyvio. The threshold of originality is very low in the UK, additionally the brand owner explicitly claims copyright on the logo[2] and prohibits its use such as on Commons. — kashmīrī 21:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
H A R R I S + H O O L E
I just violated copyright, is it? What's he gonna do? Get an admin delete this page? 🤣--RZuo (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Your nonchalant approach to copyright may land you in trouble one day. — kashmīrī 22:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri: If typing texts can also be violations of UK copyright acts, then we can just set up an AbuseFilter to let non-admins to lose rights to type words like "TfL", "Skynews", "Nominet", "Secret Intelligence Service", "NHS", "WWE NXT UK", ...etc here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per argument made by RZuo. Logo is so simple that it can be made with a simple line of code. FunnyMath (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? HTML coding is to decide on UK copyright? RZuo is the uploader by the way. — kashmīrī 05:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Too simple IMO. --Minoraxtalk 09:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep even with UK TOO threshhold, no changes have been made to the lettering.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep TOO. Their designer's lack of novelty or originality isn't our doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per above, only texts and border box, match "lego bricks". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - it is completely irrelevant if the logo can be produced by a "simple line of code", and indeed so is the argument that one "lack[s] novelty or originality". If this and this meet the United Kingdom's threshold of originality, this logo does too. There was thought in the font choice, the kerning, and so forth. "[...] the minimum threshold of originality seems to depend on the type of work, and a clear distinction between quantitative and qualitative labour that has to go into the work to turn it original cannot be made out". -- Andreas Rahmatian, Originality in UK Copyright Law: The Old “Skill and Labour” Doctrine Under Pressure. Further, the claim that this is similar to a Lego brick is objectively incorrect. That case discussed the bricks themselves as "model brick[s]"; it did not discuss the Lego logo: "[a model brick will] in essence [be] brick shaped. [...] The functional purpose of enabling it to interlock effectively with the adjoining bricks above and below [is the only original feature]". Anarchyte (work | talk) 16:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anarchyte: See my comments above, just typing words by your computer keyboards, will this be a UK violation? Lol. The "MAG London Stansted Airport logo" has a complex enough graph on the left, and EDGE's two "E"s are fairly complexly designed, but in Harris+Hoole case, which is complex? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liuxinyu970226: "It is only through the choice, sequence and combination of those words that the author may express his creativity in an original manner and achieve a result that is an intellectual creation" (Rahmatian). As for the logo, you're definitely correct in saying that the E's in EDGE surpassed the UK TOO, as that case mentioned that "[...] artistic originality is the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work" ([10]). Arguably, Commons should always err on the side of deletion when there is the possibility of a file being in violation of copyright law, especially when the content is from a nation that liberally applies copyright. This article mentions a few cases that demonstrate how low the UK's TOO really is: three concentric circles and the engraving in a frisbee were both found to be copyrightable because they were original artistic work; the artistic quality was irrelevant. That is why I think that this file may surpass the UK TOO. The font decision, the spacing, and the box all demonstrate original artistic work which should be enough for Commons to be hesitant to host it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anarchyte: In this case, we should avoid typing "Hello World" on the entire Commons, because such typings may violate Graphinica's IP rights of that film in UK, which that Hello World film has a logo that maybe same situation of H+H here, any wrongs? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    lol. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I think it is trivial enoigh, it is just font printed. --rubin16 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Harris_%2B_Hoole_logo.svg&oldid=568442965"